Hi! I think you are comparing apples with oranges. CSP and async/await can't be compared directly. Async/await works with a promise (one value) abstraction and csp works with channel abstraction (sequence).
It seems is an anti-pattern use channels as promises because them does not has the notion of error. I remember that Timothy Baldridge have said something similar about this: *"A sort of anti-pattern I see a lot is creating a lot of one-shot channels and go blocks inside every function. The problem, as you see is that this creates a lot of garbage. A much more efficient plan is to stop using core.async as a RPC-like system, and start using it more like a dataflow language: Identity data sources and sinks, and then transform and flow the data between them via core.async. * *It's interesting to note that core.async started as something that looked a lot like C#'s Async/Await, but that was dropped in favor of CSP pretty quickly. So there's reasons why the language isn't optimized for this sort of programming style. "* Source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/57ig0si3gUM/vRr-T1IaebUJ Without the intention to make spam, the funcool/cats ( https://github.com/funcool/cats) `mlet` macro does something similar in semantics that async/await does. It there some examples using the ES6/7 compatible promise library: http://funcool.github.io/promesa/latest/#sugar-syntax The advantage about this solution is that is generic and can be extended to other async related abstractions as: - JDK8 CompletableFuture's ( https://github.com/funcool/promissum/blob/master/doc/content.adoc#26-promise-chaining ) - manifold deferred ( https://github.com/funcool/cats/blob/master/doc/content.adoc#82-manifold-deferred ) - core.async channels ( https://github.com/funcool/cats/blob/master/doc/content.adoc#81-channel) Personally, I use core.async to compose different processes, but when I interacting with async apis I almost always use promise abstraction with cats sugar syntax. The promise abstraction semantics fits more properly in async rpc calls that channels because it represents a "eventually available value" and has the notion of error (unlikely core.async channels). Regards. Andrey On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Marc Fawzi <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for that! > > async function baz() { > await* [foo(), bar()]; > } > > (defn baz [] > (go > (doseq [c [(foo) (bar)]] > (<! c)))) > > With the core.async case you have to define the channel c, right? > > It looks cryptic compared to the es7 version. Like "go" what does go mean, > seriously? I mean in terms of its English language context. Go does not > convey async. And what the heck is <! Are we using bash or something? Some > kind of inverted redirection? > > I guess you can have macros that would make it look just as comprehensible as > the es7 async version so people coming into CLJS won't be turned off by the > crazy looking syntax and the exposed low level semantics. Maybe a bunch of > core.async macros that expose common use cases in a way that anyone can > understand without even having to understand CSP basics. > > In my team, everyone gets the es7 version of things but despite having been > CLJS users for 6 months now, no one understands how to use core.async. I've > had to play with it in different languages before I realized how powerful it > is to have in your toolset to manage complex (potentially dynamic) > coordination patterns between async processes but our use cases in the UI > have yet to beyond the very simple use cases your gist shows which are > (without use of macros) much easier to understand using es7 async functions. > > If macros can solve the "comprehensibility" problem for the common use cases > then maybe something that would provide es7 async like library for cljs that > gives you defnasync and await > > Syntax and semantics can then be so simple while the underlying system > remains so powerful and in that case you could have core.async be bundled > with those macros thus allowing easy access to common async patterns without > the Go syntax obfuscating things and making it seem complicated as well as > too noisy syntax wise for the most common tasks > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Shaun LeBron <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ES7 vs core.async (gist): > https://gist.github.com/shaunlebron/d231431b4d6a82d83628 > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 3:51:06 PM UTC-5, marc fawzi wrote: > > Well the title gives that impression and I regret having chose to do that > :) > > > But if you read the content i am asking the question if Async functions in > es7 can be used to build a performant and faithful version of CSP (github: > aysnc-csp) and also be useful for common tasks like the simple server > request scenario I mentioned then why wouldnt we want to think of CSP as > just one pattern not the One True Pattern for async. Right now core.async > is being used and or recommended for everything async and I am asking if > that is ideal and if CLJS can allow itself to grow beyond this one > particular pattern when it comes to async. The first thing would be > renaming core.async to core.csp and promoting choice when it comes to async > patterns. As it is right now, every time someone has an async design > problem core.async is recommended as a solution regardless of whether or > not it's the best fit solution. If you have a hammer... > > > That's the scope. Not es7 vs core.async and I'm sorry for the stupid title. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 15, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Johann Bestowrous < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > At a high level, I think it's pretty important to note that you are > comparing a language spec to a library. > > > -- > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ClojureScript" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. > > > -- > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ClojureScript" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. > > -- > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ClojureScript" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. > -- Andrey Antukh - Андрей Антух - <[email protected]> http://www.niwi.nz https://github.com/niwinz -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
